Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ClickUp MCP Server

ClickUp MCP Server

by ttttdiva
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_task_detail

Retrieve full details for a specific ClickUp task by providing its task ID, including status, assignee, priority, and dates.

Instructions

タスクの詳細情報を取得します。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_task_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesタスクID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (retrieve detail) without disclosing return format, error behavior, read-only status, or any side effects. This is minimal and lacks safety-relevant context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, and the description states its core purpose. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the 'detailed information' includes, leaving some ambiguity. The lack of usage guidance and behavioral transparency reduces completeness, but for a simple read operation it is minimally viable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (task_id is described as 'タスクID'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, but the schema adequately documents it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'タスクの詳細情報を取得します' (Gets detailed information about a task) uses a specific verb (取得) and resource (task detail), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_tasks (which likely lists tasks). It is unambiguous about its function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tasks or search_tasks. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when a single task detail is needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools